Fake Fur?

[Johnny Stew]

I'm just wondering why people are expending so much energy worrying about this, when we don't even know for sure if it was real.

[estranged4life]

Originally posted by Johnny Stew
I'm just wondering why people are expending so much energy worrying about this, when we don't even know for sure if it was real.

I havent worried about it myself at all...But I have enjoyed reading this thread...lol...Brian J.

[CarneVaca]

Regardless of whether it was real, it inevitably raises the question. This is my point all along: It seems terribly in bad taste to wear fur/fake fur in front of a national audience. I have to believe Stevie isn't a total out-of-touch idiot and therefore knows about the sensitivity in regards to wearing animal skins.

Doesn't she have a dog or two?

If she wants to wear fur, fine. But it offends me. It also says something about her.

And I made this comment in jest before, but I wonder how many people would support her wardrobe choice if she showed up wearing a thong and pasties? What she wears matters.

We have indeed become too desensatized to a lot of things. Indeed, I fear that by shrugging off this kind of thing, even if it bothers us, is a reflection of how callous we have become as a society.

[SeventhWonder]

originally posted by paleshadow:

I think it's great that people feel so pasionately about this, but morality is subjective. To say something is moraly wrong is to imply that your morals are the standard. This is a big world, and there are many cultures and belief systems that do not comply with our own, as a country or personally. To say that someone should be required to answer to anyone who asks them why they wear anything is ridiculous just because you don't like it. If someone came up to me on the streat and said "Excuse me, but what gives you the right to wear that" I would reply "I'm sorry, but I missed the part where you explained why it was any of your business". This is America, so you do have the right to express that you don't like something, but as long as someone isn't breaking the law (remember, moral law is subjective unless you have a red phone that dials God direct) then no one is "required" to explain their actions to anyone. I don't really buy the "desensitized" comment about killing in regards to fur trapping or wearing. If anything, we have become super sensitized to these type of things. Since man began walking on two feet we have primarily been a carnivorous, skin/fur wearing people. I think that people should understand eachothers differences, and respect them rather than just try to change them. Passion is great, but not when it deteriorates into a false sense of moral supremacy.

You took the words right out of my mouth.

Dan

[Bella Figura]

to add just a little more political controversy to this subject.

Should a public celebrity be made to answer for choices such as "wearing fur" but then be silent on other issues such as "advocating for peace"???

It is very interesting to me to watch this groundswell movement of conservatism...and it's stepchild: the disintegration of values and respect for dissent and/or opposing viewpoints.

It becomes an American value to pass judgements using a vague moral justification to over-criticize opposing viewpoints and follow them up by screaming, yelling, putdowns, namecalling and just plain meanness...

I find myself on a wierd side of this arguement but if you expect celebrities to keep their anti-war views to themselves then you must extend that courtesy to other aspects of their lives not using them as fodder for your political pet projects.

And since Stevie has mostly kept her political leanings to herself, I doubt she will publically answer for her suspected wearing of fur...

[EnchantedStorms]

It's all about what's politically correct at the moment.

We could be having this discussion about abortion.....but something tells me it most likely wouldn't have the same outcome.

Stevie's had both. A fur coat, AND an abortion.... I just love her music. The rest is not for me to judge.


~Angela~

[CarneVaca]

Originally posted by Bella Figura
to add just a little more political controversy to this subject.

Should a public celebrity be made to answer for choices such as "wearing fur" but then be silent on other issues such as "advocating for peace"???

You raise an interesting point. The difference between whether Stevie should make a statement on war and peace versus whether she believes animals should be killed so she can wear them is this: She showed up wearing fur/fake fur, not with a peace sign on her chest or a Kalashnikov strapped to her shoulder. If she had shown up wearing a peace sign or sporting a machine gun, then it would have been perfectly legitimate to question her on her views. She would have been making a statement.

Wearing fur makes a statement too. It says to those of us who abhor the practice of killing animals to wear them: "I don't mind that some poor defenseless beast had to die for me to look a certain way." She could clear it all up by just telling us, "I don't wear fur. What you saw was fake fur. I don't believe in killing animals to wear their pelts, but I like the look and the feel, so I wear the fake stuff." That would be simple, right?

I, for one, think Stevie, Lindsey, and whoever else who wants to, should state their political views. If they choose not to, it's fine with me too. Let's face it, a lot of people who said Stevie did the right thing by not speaking up on the war did so out of relief. They really didn't want to know how she felt, lest they disagree with her point of view. In their eyes, Stevie might have become a somewhat less desirable icon if they found she took the opposite view. As John Lennon said, "Living is easy with eyes closed."

If I had to guess, I'd say Stevie, and most certainly Lindsey, oppose the war. Hey, even Sir Paul, who historically has stayed out of politics, has now made statements against this war. He called the cluster bombs we dropped on Baghdad "cowardly weapons."

[Lisa44]

I COULDN'T CARE LESS ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS WEARING.

[SmthngOfADreamr]

I'm sorry, but this thread is becoming rediculous. It's a personal thing. Either you mind other people wearing fur or you don't. It is not about society. It's on the individual level. This argument could go on for decades.

And obviously it didn't matter that much. Go read the thread "Will LB redeem himself." From what people have heard from co-workers and friends, casual listeners were obvioulsy more concerned with the fact that the band sounded like crap on the Today show, than they were with what animal Stevie was or wasn't wearing. And that's the way it should be. Period.

[Johnny Stew]

Well, previously I had been staying away from this thread, but since I gave in and made a comment above, I might as well add more thoughts.
In for a penny, in for a pound.

I think I am probably one of the least callous or desensitized people around... to the point that my friends are constantly having to remind me that I can't save the world, and that I shouldn't kill myself trying... but even at that, I prefer to know the whole story before I get all fired-up about something.

And that's just what I feel is happening here.
People are upset... their feathers are ruffled... they're disgusted, and disappointed, and dismayed... and no one even knows if it's a real fur or not!

In my opinion, I feel completely safe in saying that it was NOT a real fur Stevie was wearing.
I think just about any celebrity in this day and age, knows better than to wear real fur... most especially out in public, on live TV, in front of a national audience potentially in the millions.

The only celebrities I can imagine wearing a real fur nowadays, are those who like to cause controversy... and Stevie is not one of those people.

And *that* is why I'm not upset about this... nor do I feel she owes us an explanation.

[DeeGeMe]

I hate to sound like a fashionista too but damn, those were some UGLY shoes she was wearing too! What exactly were they? They looked positively orthapedic! (And this from someone who loves her Birkenstocks!)

And for the animal rights activists among us, just how long before y'all start worrying about how many silk worms had to die to make all those silk chiffon dresses and silk scarves Stevie loves so much?

Or is just cute, furry little creatures you care about?
Just asking.

[CarneVaca]

I am far from being an animal rights person. I like meat too much. I object to killing animals strictly for the purposes of making clothes with their pelts. DeeGeMe, I take it you're OK with that?

I don't just care about furry little animals. I respect all life. If I catch a spider, I'll take it outside. No need to kill it. As I've made clear on other threads about other topics, I oppose killing, period.

Johnny, you don't know if it's fake, just as I don't know if it's real fur. If it is real fur, how do you feel? It seems to me you've skirted the real questions here:

--Is it real fur? If so, what does that say about your idol?
--If it isn't real fur, why wear it and give the appearance you're wearing fur and needlessly risking controversy?

I'm pretty sure all the people who say they don't care about she was wearing would have something to say if she showed up in thong and pasties. No one wants to address that question, which tells me I may be on to something.

[Bella Figura]

why is everyone condemning this thread??? It's interesting, timely and FM/Stevie subject oriented. And it's been quite civilized compared to other threads which have popped up in the past...

anyhoo, just a quickie update to my question: Should a public celebrity be made to answer for choices such as "wearing fur" but then be silent on other issues such as "advocating for peace"???

This question was asked in the context of the current media condemnation of those peace activists who are also celebrities. According to many people, celebrities are there to entertain not to speak their political minds. They're slammed whether they are vocal or make their statements silently thru fashion/gestures.

Case in point, Susan Sarandon who was very vocal advocating peace but was silent once the war started and only held up the Peace sign at the Academy Awards. And personally, I think she did the right thing, advocate for peace but once the war started, use silence to advocate peace thereby still supporting the troops. But she has been consistently slammed by the conservatives for expressing her and told to "stay in the kitchen" or in this case, the movie set...

and that's what I meant with my question, if you can demand political answers from celebrities for issues interpreted by the public as entitlement, then celebrities should also have the right to be vocal and theatrical to express their own viewpoints and support those causes they care about.

and Johnny Stew is probably right, Stevie was probably wearing fake because she hates controversy...look how she reacted to the Dixie Chick "scandal"...the girl is very pc.

hey Carne, tho I suspect being hippie kids from the 60's, Lindsey and Stevie have liberal tendencies but then again, Stevie is also influenced by her folks which probably are conservative...They both probably fall somewhere in the middle like most of us...as far as the thong and pasties, that is soooo not Stevie even in her youth!!! but you can get that action at a Britany or Christina concert

[gypsysara]

Im not sure what she is wearing, real or not, but Id hope its not. However I dont know and wont lose sleep over it. And if it is, so be it, she's entitled to her own opinions. Doesnt mean Im on whatever side, just telling it like it is. (and Im a vegitarian too)

[SmthngOfADreamr]

Originally posted by Bella Figura
Should a public celebrity be made to answer for choices such as "wearing fur" but then be silent on other issues such as "advocating for peace"???

OK I'll bite. I see these two issues in completely different lights.

I'm not a big fan of celebrities that go around "advocating peace" (or advocating war, for that matter) for the simple reason that it annoys me when people abuse their celebrity status. It is vein and presumptuous of them to assume that the public cares, or should care, about their opinion of political matters that are completely outside of the realm of their expertise. In other words, we pay them to be in movies, not to shoot thier mouth off about politics. And the reason this annoys me so much is largely due to the American public itself. We, as a society, will listen to anyone who is a star and usualy accept their word as the law without blinking. There seems to be some strange perception in this society that celebrity begets intelligence. And while Susan Sarandon might be an intelligent woman...frankly...who gives a damn? I'm not saying she should be stifled, but I just wish that Americans weren't so starstruck as to allow Hollywood to creep into EVERY aspect of life!

Now, as for somoene who chooses to wear a fur: It's rediculous to think that they should have to answer to anyone. I made the mistake in my first post on this subject of saying that Stevie could fall victim to society's strange mores on this subjet matter. Now that I think about it, that's absurd! A more is the beginnings of a law. It's a general beleif that's held by most of society, such as stealing is wrong. This isn't even close to a more! Can you imagine fur being outlawed??? It's laughable! Perhaps illegal poaching or cruel trapping... yes. But WEARING fur? It makes me chuckle. There is not a huge widely held belief that fur is wrong. Take a look at the responses on this board for a case in point. And yes I understand that the fur you wear sometimes comes from these awful places. But maybe it doesn't have to be that way? People who wear fur are not breaking the law, or even going against a more, so of course they don't have to answer to anyone!

( By the way, you'll have to excuse my spelling of the word 'more.' Not sure how it is spelled and I'm at work so I really can't searh now. It's pronounced "more-ay")